Conceptualism And The Defense Of Experience

There are two views concerning the content of experience, one is conceptualism, and another is nonconceptualism. Nonconceptualism claims that the content of perceptual experience is non-conceptual, and the judgments of experience are based on nonconceptual experience. Conceptualism argues that contents of experience have been already conceptual. The motivation for Mc Dowell’s conceptualism is an epistemological consideration. In his view, only if the content of experience must be in the logical space of reasons, can experience provide the justificatory for beliefs. Nonconceptual experience is outside of the space of reasons, not can it provide the rational relations which must be within the space of reasons. Following Sallers, who have ever attacked the Myth of the Given, Mc Dowell points out that non-conceptual experience cannot justify our beliefs but provide exculpations.Nonconceptualism does not endorse that only can conceptual content of experience provide the justification for belief. At the different angle of justification theory, nonconceptualism can be divided into two forms, internalism and externalism. Chisholm and Peacocke belong to former, Alston and Schantz insist the theory of latter. The common problem of both forms of non-conceptualism is that how can the thing outside of the space of reason justify the thing in the space of reason.Mc Dowell insists that the content of experience is conceptual, but experience is not belief. In the opinion of nondoxastic conceptualism, Sellars or Mc Dowell identity experience with linguistic affairs or propositional content, we can justify the true beliefs by an inferential way of propositional content. But in the views of doxasticism, there are two gaps in the Mc Dowell’s conceptualism, one between the experience and belief, another between belief and world. Based on two gaps, Mc Dowell cannot provide sufficient justification for beliefs. In the opinion of nondoxastic nonconceptualism, Wang Huaping argues that there are not two gaps as Doxasticism construed in conceptualism, conceptualism can absolutely provide succeed justification for beliefs, and its problem is not too weak but too strong. As the doxasticism view, non-conceptual Given that is outside of the space of reason cannot justify beliefs that belong to the space of reasons. Nondoxastical conceptualism cannot provide sufficiently justification for beliefs depending on the relation of proposition with no-committal attitude. I will argue that doxasticism that based on the conceptualism can justify beliefs sufficiently. If human conceptual capacities operate in the experience, we will gain the judgments of the experience content as human experience something, as the follow, we can justify our belief by it.